Tag: idiocracy

South Pol: It doesn’t really matter what Obama says

southpol:

Here’s John Boehner oh so earnestly confused as to why Obama just doesn’t understand how great America is.

BOEHNER: Well, they — they’ve refused to talk about America exceptionalism. We are different than the rest of the world. Why? Because…

Naturally, the right’s own Jeff Miller (R,FL) had this to say:

“I don’t think we need the president to remind us how great this country is“

Obama: wrong on reminding us of American Exceptionalism repeatedly, wrong on repeatedly reminding us of American Exceptionalism.

South Pol: It doesn’t really matter what Obama says

The Republican Party is the party of K-N-O-W. We know how to lower the cost of health care. We know how to take care of the uninsurable. We know how to put patients in charge of their health care and have a market-based, patient centered health care system that’s not going to kill jobs like ObamaCare is going to do. And we know how to stimulate the economy. We know how to create jobs in the private sector. We know how to prevent this huge government takeover of health care as well as all of society.

But we are the party of N-O against socialism and that’s what Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Barack Obama have been proposing is a greater take over of everything in human endeavor in America.

Paul Broun (R, GA) (of “spew venom” fame), has a host of apparently secret plans. Which is fine. But once, just once, the host needs to say: “okay, that’s great. We’ve got plenty of time here, so let’s start with item one. With program specifics, budget figures, and policy detail, let me hear how you plan to reduce the costs of health care? And I’m afraid we’re going to have to ask you to be more specific than simply parroting "market solutions” and other tropes; please, let’s discuss this like adults.“ And then spend an hour or four until he stops digging. Then: item two, economic stimulation. Pretty sure that one will be tax cuts for the rich. Where’s the money coming from. Specific program cuts, specific dollar figures, specific deficit projections.
Honestly, how many times do you get to speak the ”lie of the year“ without any friction whatsoever? A million times? A billion? MSM, I’m asking: when do we not just "leave it there”?
Source: thinkprogress.org

Obamacare as we know is the crown jewel of socialism. It is socialized medicine. The American people spoke soundly and clearly at the ballot box in November and they said to us, Mr. Speaker, in no uncertain terms, repeal this bill. So today, this body will cast a vote to repeal Obamacare and to those across the United States who think this may be a symbolic act, we have a message for them.
[…]
This is not symbolic, this is why we were sent here and we will not stop until we repeal a president and put a president in the position of the White House who will repeal this bill, until we repeal the current Senate, put in a Senate that will listen to the American people and repeal this bill.

Michelle Bachman (R, MN), seemingly pushing yet another Constitutional amendment, this time to “repeal” the Senate. Say what you will about her, but that’s some strict original intent right there.
The sentence containing “president in the position of the White House” is left as an exercise for the student.

Full Faith and Credit

John Chait sees some hope:

My guess is that Republicans are hearing from the business lobby that even risking a default would be totally unacceptable.

This because he notes Paul Ryan’s recent statement implicitly accepts that the debt ceiling will be raised (not can be, or might be):

“I want to make sure we get substantial spending cuts and controls in exchange for raising the debt ceiling”

Fair enough, Chait, and I’m sure they are already hearing it from the business lobby, but I think you’re forgetting the Tea Klanners in the back benches as well as the rump of the idiot Blue Dogs who all too often also think along similar, overly simplistic economic lines. We should never forget that a smaller and less organized contingent of these idiots managed to defeat the initial bailout, sending shockwaves through the markets that then and only then convinced them to do what was right (and not what played well with their foolish constituencies, most of whom want the US on a gold standard as soon as possible).

The problem with a similarly construed default bait-and-switch in which a symbolic first vote happens and then is undone some time later: the shockwaves in this case would be the end of the American economy as we know it. And there’d be no take-backs. It would simply be over. Once the genuine possibility of a default is even raised, you’ve basically defaulted. Why should anyone act otherwise in the aftermath of such a near-default? The thinking would immediately coalesce along the lines of: they didn’t actually pull the trigger this time, but we’re just one election away from something like that happening, and that’s more risk than we can bear. Get a few of these “I’m heading for the doors” mentalities together and our whole economic construct falls apart. Irrevocably.

They’re dumb enough, they’re bad enough, and dog gone it, people (will) hate them. But, rest assured, they’ll find a way to do it and will be laughing all the way to the gold deposit bank and calling it strict constructionism.

Shocking News, Everyone

The Washington Post Editorial Board is beginning, beginning mind-you, to think that maybe the GOP isn’t quite so serious about deficits after all:

Deficit financing is fine, it seems, when it comes to tax cuts. But that’s not all. Under the new rules, not only are tax cuts exempted from the pay-go concept, but the only way to pay for spending increases is with spending cuts elsewhere. No tax increases allowed – not even in the form of eliminating loopholes or cutting back on tax breaks. Of course, if you wanted to expand the loopholes, no problem. No need to pay for that.

Having made clear that no tax cuts need be paid for, the rules then take the extra step of specifying which deficit-busting tax cuts the new majority has in mind. They assume the continuation of all the Bush tax cuts; extension of the new version of the estate tax; and the creation of a big tax break to let “small businesses,” which can be expansively defined, take a deduction equal to 20 percent of their gross income.

Tax cuts for the wealthiest are fully protected. But tax help for those at the other end of the income spectrum? Forget it.

Shocking stuff. Can’t be right…Seems like I read something, somewhere about this, a while back…but that must have been all wrong.

At any rate, that $4T can easily be made up by trimming waste, fraud, and abuse inherent in the discretionary, non-defense budget…which totals around$1.4T for 2010. So, cutting four times that amount (over 10 years, solely to pay for new deficit spending to protect tax cuts for the richest 2%, and most definitely not current levels which would also require similarly scaled cuts in the very same time-frame) shouldn’t be any big deal. And, of course, Boehner’s ~$30M cuts in the House member’s own budgets gets us 0.75% of the way there already.

Shocking News, Everyone

Me Talk Presidential

Great inside tale from Matt Latimer, a former Bush speechwriter, set in and around the time what ultimately became TARP took shape:

When White House press secretary Dana Perino was told that 77 percent of the country thought we were on the wrong track, she said what I was thinking: “Who on earth is in the other 23 percent?” I knew who they were—the same people supporting the John McCain campaign.

Me Talk Presidential